Recent Comments

Answer Tips

Buzzfeed

Pinger

31 January 2009

It is well known to all progressive Europeans that Meircans are stupid, childish, and, above all, fat from all that junk food. Junk food is obviously associated with this nightmarish image:

There is a fly (or maybe a hamburger?) in the ointment, though: the Brits, to take one example, are getting more and more fat, so much so that some people call it an epidemic. But of course, the intelligent and progressive Europeans can't have it ascribed to McDonald's. So here comes a scientific explanation to that un-American fat:

OBESITY can be “caught” as easily as a common cold from other people’s coughs, sneezes and dirty hands, scientists will claim today. Researchers believe that an airborne “adenovirus” germ could be causing the fat plague that is blighting Britain and other countries.

Notice that "other countries" addendum. I hope the author of the article doesn't mean them stupid Meircans with their stupid ways and their stupid McDonald's...

In related news: while googling for more info on the subject, I have stumbled on the following:

My cat sneezed, farted and during the fat squirted out some poop... has no one elses cat done this?

30 January 2009

The theme for this week PhotoHunt is "Furry".Here are some fairly recent shots of two furry creatures:

This is our bi-colored neighbor.

And of course, without seeing his tail, you cannot really judge his furriness. See what I mean?

Of course, this specimen doesn't have a real fur, if you are a purist. But he/she definitely looks furry - no argument accepted. It is just that in the wintertime (well, relative, as it goes here) small birds look twice as large as they really are, trying to keep the heat of their puny bodies contained...

Have a nice weekend!

If you liked what you have seen (or read) in this post, add your link in the comments:

The amazing inquiry from Norway with these keywords - "anti jew status update" in full - caused my feverish imagination some overtime. How does it really go in Norway? So here is an imaginary scene:

(Imagine a lonely pub on a snow-covered street of a Norwegian village. Let's call it "The Polar Bear's Corner", for lack of knowledge. The windows are covered by a thick layer of ice - at least the upper halves of the windows that could be seen over the snow. Helgi* dismounts his snowmobile near the pub, shakes off about half a meter of snow accumulated on his monumental shoulders and head, enters the pub. There is no one, absolutely no one in the pub, as usual - only the owner cum barman, Grímr and, at the counter, a permanent fixture of the place, local fisherman Hróaldr). The following discussion develops (for brevity the 5 minute intervals of silence between the sentences are removed):

Helgi: Good evening.Grímr: Uhu...Hróaldr: Mmm... (takes another swallow of Aquavit and another bite of lutefisk)Helgi: It is cold outside. Colder than reindeer's hoof.Grímr: Uhu...Hróaldr: Mmm... (takes another swallow of Aquavit and another bite of lutefisk)Helgi: So, how was your fishing today, Hróaldr?Hróaldr: Er... (gestures vaguely, takes another swallow of Aquavit, skips the lutefisk)Helgi: I see. And how is the anti-Jew status, Grímr?Grímr (looking at a barometer-like contraption on the wall): Fine... jah... just fine... (pours a glass of Aquavit for Helgi)Helgi (settling down behind the counter): Mmm...Grímr: Uhu...

A Norwegian diplomat stationed in Saudi Arabia sent a mass-distributed email stating that "the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are doing the same thing to the Palestinians, as the Nazis did to their grandparents," using her official Norwegian Foreign Ministry address.

Some people ban books with offensive piglets in them, some people ban everything deemed to be of danger to their regime, and some people demand to ban a book they just don't grok. Due, you see, to their limited reading comprehension. Now it's a book about the danger of banning books to boot. And one of the greatest books written on the American continent.

I have a positive and constructive proposal to make for US school system - let's call it "reverse ban". In practice it means excusing students with IQ lower than a necessary threshold value from reading books they are unable to understand. Should work like a dream.

Not sure Ray Bradbury would approve this idea, though, but he will be definitely unhappy with the only alternative: timely castration of the kid's dad.

P.S. It is, in fact, an old story - from 2006 that somehow came up in this week's buzz. Anyway, it's a pity to waste a good rant...

Ben Cohen publishes in Z-Word Blog a series of three articles under a common title "The Limits of the Northern Ireland Analogy" by Henry McDonald, who has covered Irish politics for the Observer and Guardian newspapers. It is a compelling read for an outsider, and I am waiting for the last, the third installment.

So far Henry McDonald is "examining the flaws in the frequently-drawn comparison between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Islamist terror groups like Hamas." There is another side of the NI conflict that could be examined, although I know that it irks all my British friends who, quite rightly, point out the inherent danger of looking for analogies in history. But what the heck - there aren't that many other good ways to learn from history.

Anyway, at least at first glance and, I dare say, also at second glance there are too many common features in the NI history and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to be easily disregarded.

To start with, about 400 years ago the enforced population of Northern Ireland (already populated by Irish Catholics) by Protestant settlers was initiated by Britain. It continued for a long time, resistance notwithstanding. The conflict ended (hopefully) only recently by an enforced peace agreement, and it's good that the centuries of the mutual bloodletting are over.

So: we have a foreign colonial power, we have the settlers, we have the land grab, we have four centuries of killing and, eventually, we have some semblance of peace - brought forth under enormous international pressure.

There is one slight catch: you see, the settlers and the settlements in NI, after all, remained where they were planted...

Since the new administration approach to any international issues is to work with the originators of the issue, this directive, being generic, takes an interesting twist when applied to spying.

President Barack Obama's choice for spy chief, Dennis Blair, said Thursday that U.S. intelligence agencies should seek ways of working with Iran on issues of mutual interest, underscoring the new administration's interest in engagement with elements in the Islamic state.

Frankly, I am discombobulated by this statement. How exactly it is going to work now? Does it mean that instead of all these spy satellites, listening stations, sneaking in the night over the borders and all the usual cloak and dagger stuff, there will be a new "working with" solution? Something like a CIA agent calling his counterpart in Iranian intelligence: "Hey, Hafiz, buddy, how it is going? Listen, I was asked to provide the boss - you know these brass heads in Langley, they never tire of requesting stuff and shit - the diagrams of your new rocket base, you know, under that souk in Bakhtaran? So in the spirit of cooperation and knowing that you should, like, work with us and vice versa, why don't you fax the stuff over? How much? Let me check with procurement... by the way, could we do a barter deal? - I'll get you the blueprints of our new submarine..."

28 January 2009

I don't consider this point to be of any particular importance, for reasons I'll go into later, but it is much used and abused in a lot of Israel-bashing articles, so it is worth addressing as a separate item. As a sample of that "impartial reporting", here goes a clip from CNN:

"The reality and the truth is that ... the side that broke the ceasefire was Israel" - says Mustafa Barghouti branded by CNN "independent Palestinian legislator" (what a joke...). In fact, this is all he says on the subject, continuing with the usual litany of Israeli misdeeds. No proof, no corroboration, but nevertheless it is worth screening.

Probably feeling that Barghouti's statement needs a bit more substance, the (guest? I am not sure, I rarely watch CNN) commentator eagerly displays additional proof, such as quotes from some newspapers, including Guardian (yeah, well). All this supported by a (quite unusual for normally immovable TV anchors) feverish movements of hands, head, the whole body - quite extraordinary by itself, and the commentator is not looking into the camera, which is a telltale sign. Hatchet job if I ever seen one.

As all the other sources before CNN, the main reference to the event that supposedly broke the ceasefire points to November 4, 2008. IDF, acting apparently at will, entered the Gaza strip and killed six Hamas fighters. (At least no one disputes that these six nice folks were Hamas thugs.)

The circumstances leading to this vicious act by IDF are left unexplained in most cases, in a few cases there is a muted reference to a tunnel, but it could as well have been 6 Hamas engineers working on a segment of the future Gaza subway, as far as most of the Western sources are concerned.

For the first time since the ceasefire took effect in June, IDF forces operated deep in the Gaza Strip Tuesday night in a bid to collapse a tunnel located 250 meters (273 yards) from the border – and which terror groups intended to use for kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Palestinian sources reported that six gunmen were killed in the clashes that ensued during the operation, and that several others, including a female bystander were injured.

So this special kind of subway was only 250 meters from the border. Probably it was just a part of preparations for a Christmas surprise gift-bearing visit or somewhat in this vein.

But again, this case is just an example of the methodology developed for "analyzing" the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is really simple: disregard the history and take a snapshot of what is going on at the moment, if the moment is convenient to your narrative. Israeli tank shell devastating a Palestinian family - cool, it's an excellent snapshot. 50 Qassam rockets flying in the other direction a day before - who cares, it was yesterday. An Israeli unit crossing the border and killing six gunmen (let's call them simply Palestinians, it makes the snapshot that much clearer) - good, it shows the IDF for what it is - a killing machine. The side fact of the tunnel these "victims" were busy digging under the border - forget it, it confuses the issue.

However, the big picture is there, for many to see. And here we come to the reason I said that I am not totally overwhelmed by the issue of who was first in this case. The so called "ceasefire" was a sham to start with. What kind of ceasefire it is when Qassams and mortars keep being launched, albeit with a lesser frequency? Ceasefire, incidentally, is defined as "A state of peace agreed to between opponents so they can discuss peace terms". Surely you would expect a state of peace not being broken even by a single bullet, not to speak about rockets and mortars? Surely you would expect that in case of every breach of ceasefire the other side will be not only entitled to respond but will indeed respond?

Apparently not when the freedom fighters of Hamas are concerned. For some obscure reason, the Western media seems to be completely at ease with Hamas frequent breaches of ceasefire, but is willing to accept what CNN and other media outfits define as Israeli violation of it.

Of course the miracle of ceasefire is another point that is frequently mentioned and used by the media. As if it was all sunshine and happiness. As if the border crossings weren't attacked, as if bullets, mortar shells and Qassams weren't flying.

The two of them: FedEx spokeswoman Sandra Munoz and the James Loomis, director of Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport agree only on two points: that the plane crashed and that there was a fire on board as a result. Otherwise:

The plane ... landed short of the touchdown zone ..., Loomis said.

Munoz said the plane had ... skidded off the runway amid light freezing rain.

I know I am notthefirst to post this, but I got an e-mail with it and a man must do what a man must do. The real reason I am posting this joke, which makes its rounds in different versions (the one I heard about xx years ago was about a Russian, an American and a Frenchman and a tribe of cannibals) is to point out a few technical mistakes that make the whole situation implausible. See the end of this post. So:

Dan Rather, Katie Couric and an Israeli sergeant were all captured byterrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that hewould grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hotspicy chili."

The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili.Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."

Katie Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out mytape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen.Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job tillthe end."

The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Couricdictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. Israeli tough guy, what isyour final wish?" "Kick me in the ass," said the soldier."

"What?" asked the leader? "Will you mock us in your last hour?" "No,I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Israeli.

So the leader shoved him into the open and kicked him in the ass. Thesoldier went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistolfrom under his flack jacket, and shot the leader dead. In the resultingconfusion, he jumped to his knapsack, pulled out his carbine and sprayedthe terrorists with gunfire. In a flash, all terrorists were either deador fleeing for their lives.

As the soldier was untying Rather and Couric, they asked him, "Whydidn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them tokick you in the ass first?"

"What?" replied the Israeli, "And have you two report that I was the aggressor?”

Ain't it the truth?

Well, now a quick review of the story.

Lowly Israeli sergeants don't carry no 9mm pistols.

This sergeant deserves a few weeks in the nick - he left his rifle in his knapsack.

If that dumbo left his rifle in his knapsack, the probability that he has his flack jacket on is zero - most probably he conveniently "forgot" it in the base camp to start with.

There are no carbines in IDF today.

And how would an Israeli sergeant know Dan Rather and Katie Couric from a hole in the wall?

Case closed.

P.S. And what the heck was he doing in Iraq to start with? Home leave? Tourism? ...?

26 January 2009

Humanitarian aid chief Louis Michel called the destruction left by Israel's offensive "abominable", but said Hamas bore "overwhelming responsibility". He said there would be no dialogue with with the "terrorist" movement until it gave up violence and recognised Israel.

Louis Michel: European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid.

Saying this in Gaza - wow, the man has some cojones.

Update: this post is barely two hours old, and this blog here is inundated by queries "Louis Michel Jew?". Well, guess yourself, morons.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi (an all these other names he has collected - Qaddafi, Quadaffi, Qazafi etc.) is at his peak as a stand-up comedian. Second to none, although Mahmoud the Mad is breathing at his... well, there are things one couldn't bear thinking about, so let's go back to the Libyan leader.

In a speech outlining his views on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaddafi called for the creation of one state rather than two nations living side by side. "We can call it Isratine," he said.

Well, there is a catch, dear Mr. Gad... Quad... Qaz... what the heck, dear Muammar: that name doesn't roll of one's tongue easily. Definitely no zing to it. How would we be able to sell "Isratine humus" or "Isratine falafel" - it's a disaster in the making, this is what it is, as any sane marketeer will tell you for free.

So, keeping in mind the noble goal of the peaceful solution, I hereby declare a contest for the best name to that Mr Muammar's vision. To start with, a few hastily thrown together ideas:

Parsliel

Parlesine

Israpine

Ispaline

Pissrael

OK please send in your ideas in the comments to this post, the winner will be a) published here and b) get a no-contest seat in the new entity's parliament - no primaries or any such shit!

I am not that familiar with Wilders, his life and his beliefs. Here goes a selection of posts and articles by Solomon of Solomonia.

So I am not going to have an opinion about the trial and the man. People who are putting Wilders on trial could have found a loophole in the famous Dutch freedom of speech, besides Wilders could be a bigot and a hatemonger for all I know.

However, if one of the Widers' sins is comparing Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, when do the Dutch folks intend to prosecute their own Muslim folks that lately are mostly seen running around with "Zionism = Nazism" placards and stuff like this?

The story below is written by our young Israeli friend who lives and works as a veterinarian in California. Its' a true story and it may be a lesson for some people, so I've decided to offer it to our readers unabridged - as it is told, titled and written down by him. Enjoy.

To those of you who don’t understand why there are wars in the world.

Being an Israeli today is not an easy task, mainly if you chose to live abroad. People are asking for your opinion about why you can’t make peace in the Middle East: why can’t they understand, these Middle Eastern folks, that peace is better than war?

Make love not war they like to say…

I am not for wars, but I understand why there are wars in the world and why, probably, they will always exist.

Here is a little story that happened to me a few weeks ago and made me understand that more then ever. The story happened in a small town that is called San Luis Obispo (SLO) that resides on the beautiful central coast of California. It is a small student town, very peaceful. When you come to visit SLO, it seems that everyone is busy with only one thing - having fun. The stores are full, the restaurants are fully booked, many young males and females walking up and down the streets showing what they have to show (and some times what they don’t), and everyone is nice and happy.

On a small street, located slightly away from the center of the town, there is a small restaurant serving Mediterranean food and named “Jaffa café”. I’ve visited this restaurant many times. It has decent food that reminds me of the food I grew up on at Israel. The proud owner of the place is Adnan. He used to live in Israel about 20 years ago, then he decided to come here and try his luck. It worked for him; he opened a successful business that provided for him well through the years.

Once in a while, when I am eating in Jaffa and when Adnan is there, we talk a bit about Israel, about life and about business. Approximately a year ago he told me that he thinks about buying the business next door and opening there a second restaurant, serving American food and pizza. At that time the business next door was a flower shop. I thought to myself, wow this guy is a good businessman. He will have two separate places side by side, serving different food, people will think they compete and this way he will attract customers that grew up on bacon cheeseburger with a lot of BBQ sauce rather then the weird people that prefer to eat humus in that nearby place…

It sounded like a smart move to me (but I’m not a good businessman).

Time went by, my wife and I visited Jaffa few times, enjoyed the falafel, tabule salad and humus (and to lesser extent the pita bread which is not very fancy…) everything was good, everyone was happy and life went by.

The last time I visited Jaffa was about 2 weeks ago. Me and my wife decided to stop by and grab something on the way to Costco (we always try to save money on food before spending at least $400 in Costco. It makes us feel better when spending the money… I don’t know why). Anyhow, while approaching the parking lot of Jaffa I was very busy talking to my wife about something that was probably very stupid and thus missed the parking lot of Jaffa, but I did get to the adjacent one, where the flower shop was. Guess what - there is no flower shop there anymore but a restaurant. It is called Petra and there is a large neon sign that says: Pizza!!!

Wow, I think to myself again, this Adnan is not playing around. He is a man of his word. He has opened it as promised. I tell my wife that we can park in the parking lot of Petra, since it’s practically the same business. But the wife is very perceptive and noticed that on the parking spaces there are signs saying “Petra only”, so she mentioned that to me and I, the know-it-all, told her that it is just a part of Adnan’s tactics.

We park the car and as we step out, someone is approaching us from Petra. I know the guy: he used to work for Jaffa. He says hi and when he sees that we are starting to walk toward Jaffa he mentions the fact that this parking lot is for Petra only. I nod, smile to him that little smile of some one that knows “the secret” and keep on marching toward Jaffa Café. He calls me again, very nicely, and repeats his mantra. This time he gives me a paper menu with the proud name Petra on it. I don’t even look at it and as I look through the window of Petra I see another person that was working at Adnan’s place for a very long time.

Now I am sure it's all for show. (At that stage, my, as I've mentioned, very perceptive wife understands that we should move the car. She starts to elbow me to give her the car keys so she could move it to the Jaffa Café parking lot) I give the guy the secret smile again and ask him quietly “both businesses are owned by Adnan, isn’t it so?”

He doesn’t return a smile and says “No, not at all, it is a different owner”. Now he asks us again us to move the car. I still don’t buy it (by now I have a little bruise on my rib cage from my you know who) Don’t give up, go with your heart that is what my mom always said…… and I don't give up. I tell the guy, look your parking lot is empty I am going to grab something to eat at Jaffa do you really mind if I leave the car here? He looks at me, then looks at the other guy in Petra and asks: “Are you going to be there a long time?” I don’t think so and tell him that. He nodded his head and gave me the permission to leave the car in Petra’s parking lot.

Finally we walk the 10 meters to the entrance of Jaffa Café. As we open the door to go in, some one from the Jaffa café approaches us and asks us if we parked the car at Petra’s? I don’t answer, my wife doesn’t answer - she just grabs the car keys from me and is gone… She is moving the car, she’s had enough.

I am going in… smiling, slightly confused. As I get to the counter I hear the guy from Jaffa calling out to me: “I see you brought your tissue with you”. Having no clue what he is talking about, I look at my hand and see that menu from Petra… I understand the joke, I smile and now, when I am in the friendly and familiar territory I ask for an explanation.

So here is the story from the guy that works at the counter at Jaffa café:

The guy that bought the property that became Petra was Adnan’s old partner. They decided that he will open an American restaurant next door; they will share the parking lot and enjoy the mutual clients. Few days before the grand opening of Petra, the Jaffa people noticed that there are signs at the parking lot that mention that it is for Petra’s customers only. Moreover, when they checked the menu of Petra, it appeared to be identical to Jaffa’s – with addition of Pizza…

The war has begun!!!

Now, I ask you, who exactly is going to benefit from that war? No one. Does it make sense? Not really.

Are there enough clients for two identical Mediterranean restaurants in a side street of a small town in California? I find it hard to believe, since most residents of the town don’t know where Petra is, where Jaffa is, what falafel is or why they don’t serve burger…

They still chose to fight.

Is it going to last for ever….. No, when both of them will understand that they don’t benefit from it will end. But it is not going to happen until then.

Peace comes from understanding; it can't be forced upon any one.

I just find it ironic that one place is called Jaffa (a city in Israel) and the other one is Petra (a city in Jordan), even here in a small town in California they can’t get along…

I hope I made my point and that you enjoyed the little story.

I apologize to the people of Petra, I am sure they have a totally different story to tell, and that their story makes a lot of sense from their side but it wouldn't change the outcome. It still doesn’t make sense no matter who started, who was there first and who was unfair to whom.

Now Jaffa and Petra are side by side and they will fight until they will understand that it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

We have to let them fight until they will resolve it on their own. We can choose sides but that isn't going to help either - it might just make it longer…..

I will keep coming to Jaffa because it is the only place where I can eat like at home but each time I come I will remember that now I really understand why wars exist in the world and why, as sad as it is, they will always exist.

There is a lot of rumors about the Barack Obama's botched oath, the second attempt without the Bible and the mysterious reasons for all that. Somebody has to dispel the fog, and who better than the Elders that, of course, have a hand in everything?So it started with the mishap during the inauguration, and some people keep ranting about it:

As the story goes, Obama then took the oath again, this time with the correct wording.

But, as other people were quick to notice, the Bible was missing from the procedure. Do you see a Bible in this picture? No, and neither do I.

Every secret becomes eventually a matter of public knowledge, and the Elders decided that now, when the goose is already cooked, it could be served.

You can read and view his story in the link above. Notice his main concern:

But he said he would not like to become an official body-double for Obama as he was worried about the possibility of getting shot.

Too bad, Ilhan. Of course the guy was spirited away by the Secret Service quicker than you can say "alien abduction". And now he is living a challenging, albeit somewhat hectic life of a POTUS double. Naturally, many things in hitherto distant and strange country seem bewildering to Ilhan. Like, for instance, the sudden decision that he'll replace the POTUS in the inauguration ceremony and, especially, the Secret Service guy saying "let this guy freeze his nuts off...". And they didn't give Ilhan any nuts besides... strange people. And of course, he mixed the words they told him to study by heart, because he was frightened by all these people standing around looking at him.

And the next day was even stranger. Ilhan was just exiting a restroom, when the same Chief Justice who looked at him so fierce the other day, stumbled right upon him. He pushed that same old and musty Bible in Ilhan's hands and said "Now repeat what I say, I don't have no time to spare, there is a poker game starting soon in...".

The Secret Service guy who was following Ilhan interrupted the judge "No, sir, this is the wrong one, the real POTUS is waiting in that room over there, with all the reporters".

"Aw, heck", says the Chief Justice and runs away guided by the Secret Service chap - forgetting the book in Ilhan's hands. Ilhan, seeing as he is not needed at the moment and having a book in his hand, has done what any man in this situation would do: namely, he returned back to the restroom.

So this is why the second oath was taken without a Bible. That simple.

Of course, if you believe that the story is really that simple, you are a simpleton. Everything, starting with the first, botched, oath and ending with spiriting the Bible away, was orchestrated by our omnipresent and ever-manipulative outfit.

To start with, Judge John Roberts is as Jooish as gefilte fish (some say even more - as if it is possible). And sure as death and taxes he will not be hurrying to play poker - rushing to a place where a minyan was needed urgently is more likely...

And the purpose of the whole charade with the first, second and third attempt at the oath: Chief Justice has smuggled into the White House a rare ancient copy of a Torah, kept in his coat (notice the coat is on in the picture - have you asked yourself why?). The copy is said to have many supernatural qualities, one of them being an instant conversion to Judaism of any person whose hand is shaken by the Torah carrier.

And when BHO was high-fiving the the Chief Justice after the oath (see them going at it in that photo above), he got it.

I hope you got it too by now.

So, when our next PM says "I have the White House in my pocket" or some other words to that effect, it wouldn't be a fake "Zionist quote" from a Neo-Nazi site anymore, but a real McCoy...

Lechaim!

In the next installment: the subliminal message recorded and played to the millions of people who watched the inauguration - whether in Washington or on TV...The working title: "Perlman? We'll show you a Perlman!"

23 January 2009

I enjoy reading Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations and warmly recommend it to all. Take, for instance, this post (or this post - another gem); it appears, by the way, that we have been awarded that sigh of relief on the same day, but many other Israelis got it then.

But of course, I don't always agree with everything he writes (it's two Jews, remember). This time it's regarding Guardian. As you, our few readers, know only too well, that outfit sometimes drives me up the wall. And provides the majority of so much needed morning adrenaline. But Yaacov goes a bit further in this post about alleged use of phosphorus by IDF. He says:

The fact that an overtly antisemitic newspaper has 700,000 subscribers in the middle of the civilized world, irks me.

I cannot agree with this sweeping characterization. I am absolutely certain that as an organization Guardian carries the same "background level" of anti-Semitism as it could be measured in the whole of Britain (just not too close to Galloway and his ilk).

Guardian caters to a certain readership that expects them to bash Israel at any opportunity and is (probably) more anti-Semitic on average than the "background level". But then, there is a goodish slice of population in Britain where anti-Semitism is a given, and I don't even want to go there...

Anyway, concluding that the driving point for all Guardian's hacks bashing Israel is anti-Semitism is an oversimplification and, as such, counter-productive.

Much better to call them just gasbags - unless you intend to fisk one at the moment and really deconstruct him/her.

22 January 2009

Really? Is it a decisive loss for Israel when a "progressive" lefty newspaper generously provides a pulpit to the propaganda chief of one of the most reactionary, misogynist and life-hating sects in existence?

21 January 2009

The nine Supreme Court justices unanimously accepted the UAL appeal, while the Balad appeal was accepted by eight justices against one. The rulings paved the way for the parties to run in the February 10 elections.

Good. Much as I detest some of the players on that field (but then, I detest some of the players on the opposite field too), this is a proof of democracy being upheld.

Every time I think that anti-Israeli rhetoric cannot stoop lower (for fear of breaking its back or for fear of hitting its head on the (basement) floor), the rhetoric surprises me again. This time it's Michael Paulin, a barrister and a philosopher, in the Guardian's CiF:

It is true that Israel has suffered from Hamas rocket attacks. Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel. Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.

It is great to know that Mr Paulin allows that Israel has suffered from Hamas rockets. But this is where the free ride on Mr Paulin's generosity ends. Read the next sentence:

Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

What the heck does this legalese mean in mean in plain language? "Insofar" means "To the degree or extent that...". Meaning that for Mr Paulin the truth of the matter is not established firmly enough to be absolutely certain. I am not sure whether he said it as a barrister or as a philosopher. "Would be" definitely means that Mr Paulin keeps its mind open to the possibility of Hamas not being exculpated of this, purely theoretical, accusation.

In short: at this stage of his article Mr Paulin doesn't absolutely exclude the possibility that Hamas could be possibly suspected of an alleged breach of military etiquette that, taken under further consideration by Mr Paulin or person(s) he entrusts with this mission of objectively and dispassionately taking the whole subject into consideration, could possibly lead to recognition of the necessity of ... under Geneva conventions of... I hope it's clear to you now.

But wait, it becomes curiosier and curiosier as we continue:

Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel.

Aside of this "yet", the sentence above could be taken at its face value - a dry recording of a fact. So what is the role of that "yet"? Of all possible uses, this one is, probably, the most fitting: "Used in negative statement to describe a situation that has existed up to this point or up to the present time".

If you still wonder about the "yet", here comes a smasher that rounds up the built-up tension:

Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.

That's it - simple and elegant. The response wasn't necessary - after all, what is a measly 20 (twenty) people killed between neighbors? Now, I am more than sure, it was not the barrister's half but the philosopher's one talking...

Anyhow, here is the barrister cum philosopher - I would spit on neither:

Bleh...

P.S. The learned barrister/philosopher forgot to compare that tiny number 20 with the number of people killed in road accidents in Israel during the same period. I can help: it's between 4,000 and 5,000.

It is an interesting public debate: A.B. Yehoshua trying to get some sense into the head of our Mr self-assigned Conscience Of the Nation (CON) - Gideon Levy of Haaretz. The discussion is rather long, so I will quote only two more or less randomly chosen pieces. Says A.B.:

I asked you whether you truly believe that if they fire missiles the crossings will be opened, or the opposite. And whether you truly believe that it is right and just to open crossings into Israel for those who declare openly and sincerely that they want to destroy our country. I did not get an answer from you. And even though the crossings were in fact opened many times, and were closed in the wake of the missile attacks, regrettably I still did not see you standing firmly behind a moral position which says: Now, people of Gaza, after you expelled the Israeli occupation from your land, and justly so, you must hold your fire.

I hope you didn't expect an answer from G.L., because none are forthcoming. Instead, here is an example of the typical G.L. tirade (comments in square brackets are mine):

We left Gaza because of our own interests and needs [This is also something we should be blamed for? That our interests and Palestinian interests coincided? Mmm...], and then we imprisoned them [Lie - the imprisonment was gradual - all because of the shooting]. We cut the territory off from the rest of the world [Lie - it came only as a result of the shooting and weapon smuggling] and the occupied West Bank [Lie - a link between Gaza and West Bank was seriously considered before the shooting started], and did not permit them to construct an air [Lie - an airport was constructed and even became functional for a short time - before the shooting started] or sea port [Another lie - a sea port was planned as well - before the shooting started]. We control their population registrar and their currency - and having their own military is out of the question [Now who is trying to play a village idiot here - or making his readers to look like ones?] - and then you argue that the occupation is over?

It is fine with me to have a Mr Conscience, although I would prefer to have one in the government's employ but if Haaretz must...

20 January 2009

Imagine a Palestinian boy who, as any other boy, liked football, playing in the yard, taunting his sisters, catching flies, running away from the boring lessons at school, etc. All was well with Mohammed Badwan until the the black magic of the Israeli military drastically changed the life of the lad. Here is his picture - during the first encounter with IDF:

The first time the name of the youngster comes up in the Palestinian chronicles is an article (_adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/04_05_03nl.php_) on the Adalah site:

Most recently, on 15 April 2004, the Israeli military used Mohammed Badwan, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from Biddo, West Bank as a human shield. Mohammed was taking part in a demonstration against the construction of The Wall in Biddo.

Not nice, agreed. But obviously the boy made a lasting impression on the Zionist aggressors, because a week barely passed, and he is used again - and in the same capacity (but now he is an year older). Electronic Intifada (_electronicintifada.net/v2/article2614.shtml_) knows the details:

According to the same sources, on 22nd April 2004, a 13 year old boy called Mohammed Said Essa Badwan/Badran was used as a human shield. Mohammed was peacefully taking part in spontaneous demonstration...

It becomes a habit with IDF (or with young Mohammed) apparently. Or, you can say, an innocent mistake in the date - nothing special.

But the amazing career of young Muhammad is only budding, just wait a bit. He is used again, now, according to Amnesty International (_amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2005&c=ISR_) report for 2005:

In April, Israeli soldiers used 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan as a "human shield" during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Biddu. The soldiers placed the boy on the hood of their jeep and tied him to the front windscreen to discourage Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones in their direction.

Notice that he is still 13 years old. Again, it could be a clerical mistake, but the boy shows resilience and is highly reusable in his role of a human shield. This is probably why the Zionists decided to put him in some (hitherto secret) suspended animation machine. Apparently his age plays a critical role in their nefarious plans, since the next record of his appearance relates to 2007 (_lists.resist.ca/pipermail/onthebarricades/2008-April/000480.html_):

Palestinain children as young as 11 were used as human shields during an Israeli military invasion of Nablus in March 2007. 13 year-old Mohammad Badwan was tied by the arm to an Israeli military jeep...

It is Nablus now and three years later, but he is still 13 years old! And March of 2007 sees his return to Bidou in the same role. According to the Live Leak (_liveleak.com/view?i=76d_1173007758_)

Israeli human rights activists have accused border police of using a 13-year-old Palestinian as a human shield. Rabbis for Human Rights say that Mohammed Badwan was tied by police to a jeep during a recent demonstration in the West Bank village of Bidou.

This was posted in March 2007 too. Surely our boy gets around. Besides, is it possible that he's developed some affinity for a specific border police jeep? Because the picture used is usually the same, sometimes cropped and sometimes not.

And if you thought for a moment that the wretched semi-existence of Mohammad, which could be described as frozen - woken up - tied to a jeep - frozen again, has a happy end, you are mistaken, because he was activated again recently - in 2009, according to Pakistani Scandals (_pakistaniscandals.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/palestinian-child-used-as-human-shield-by-israel_):

This is what happened to a Palestinian child who joined Teenagers throwing stones at Israeli border police. Muhammad Badwan was grabbed by officers and tied by an arm to the grille covering the windscreen of their security vehicle. Last night the 13 year olds father said the police had illegally used his son as a human Shield to try to stop the demonstrators throwing stones at them.

There are more events with different dates where Muhammad participated, but I hope you have got the picture by now.

The interminable discussion on the crucial difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism - whether the latter doesn't necessarily mean the former and how good and useful is to criticize Israel and how it doesn't mean that the said criticism is anti-Semitic and blah and blah and ad infinitum - these discussions are not for me, really. There are better emetics that, at least at the stage of intake, are much more pleasing to the tongue and warming to the stomach, really.

So Simply Jews will continue to avoid this morass in the future, and we are all pleased to notice two interesting and useful developments:

Many nice anti-Zionist folks have lately expanded their ire toward Israel onto the Jewish folks who don't have a lot (if at all) to do with Israel. Like this headmaster in Denmark who, while being an ardent anti-Zionist, got somehow mixed up and (obviously in the swing of anti-Zionist fervor) refuses to accept Jewish kids to his school.

Many of the anti-Zionist folks parading the streets of Europe and US also got confused and, instead of writing "death to Israel" (or "Isreal" for some mysterious reason - they can't all be illiterate, after all?) put "Death to all Jews" ("Juice") on their placards.

Frankly, it makes me happy. Time to put paid to that veneer of political correctness. Especially when it covers a racist shitface* to start with.

I suspect that the message below will leave the Hon. MP's brain and heart untouched. However, it says a lot to many other people. Posted with kind permission of the author.

FAO G Kaufman M P

Do you not realise how much hurt your speech has caused - both mild mannered dovish and left wing Jews and old people who take little notice of day to day affairs are disgusted by your latest outburst .Could you NOT have said ANYTHING MORE CONSTRUCTIVE than this collection of hateful comments?

As a politician do you want YOUR antecedents to be blamed for your present actions -- as you are implying by referring to Mrs Livni 's father's actions in the 1940s?WE all know you hark back to the old days of Mapai led governments [many of us do ] but we are in a new age, and by allying yourself with the anti Zionists, anti Israel fanatics and in effect the anti Semites you are NOT doing your cause or beliefs any favours.

YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT ISRAEL WAS NOT BORN OUT OF " JEWISH TERRORISM " - many of the points you make about that period are grossly distorted and out of context and can only be construed as being designed to cause anti Semitism amongst the British public .

If you do disagree with Israeli actions or policies there are many much better ways of trying to influence matters than by making this sort of speech, with its self congratulatory justification for allying yourself with those who would deny your rights if given half the chance.

The fact that your party never gave you a senior Cabinet post which many felt you deserved is evidence that even your anti Israel outbursts of recent years has not overcome the incipient anti Semitism prevalent in Western Society in general and the Labour Party in particular. That was a boycott. More fool you. If you think " your friend " Arafat wanted peace why did he walk away in Camp David in 2000?

The big guns seem to be quieting down, and now we could all return to same old, same old.Hamas will declare its victory:

Turning his attention to Israeli attacks in Gaza, Hamadan added: "Hamas was not hurt…Hamas and the Palestinian organizations continue to rule Gaza. The victims of this war will be the basis for the continuation of the fighting and hostility vis-à-vis the Israeli side."

Hamas said on Saturday it would continue fighting in Gaza as long as Israeli troops remained in the Hamas-ruled Strip. "If the Israeli military continues its existence in the Gaza Strip, that is a wide door for the resistance against the occupation forces," Hamas representative in Lebanon Osama Hamada told al-Jazeera television.

How ridiculous is the bragging and how empty the threats are - remains to be seen.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared Operation Cast Lead a victory and threw the ball into Hamas's court, declaring the unilateral cease-fire that suspends the three-week operation, the future of which depends on whether Hamas continues to fire on Israel.

and threaten Hamas with dire consequences if they do what they promise.

According to what was decided Saturday night, Israel will stop its offensive, but will keep the IDF forces in place, see how Hamas responds and whether an effective mechanism will be set up on the border to stop smuggling.

Likud will open a campaign based on Cast Lead failure to reach the objective of destroying Hamas (that Likud would have been stopped more or less at the same point of fighting is immaterial in politics):

The Likud called on the government to continue with Operation Cast Lead until its goals were met, including an "effective closure of the corridor used to smuggle rockets into Gaza. Halting the operation under the current conditions means a second edition of the truce with Hamas. The Likud supports continuing the operation." MK Yisrael Katz (Likud) said the government had failed in Gaza.

Knesset Member Talab El-Sana (United Arab List-Ta'al) said Israel's decision on a unilateral truce in Gaza was a "publicity stunt mean to reduce international pressure."

Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman said, "Past experience shows us that ceasefires become deathtraps. The nation is lending its support, the residents of the south are standing firm, and only the government is preventing the IDF from finishing the job.

People of Gaza will wake up to see the scenes of destruction and chaos - only to find themselves forced by Hamas gunmen to praise the "victors".

And people of Israel will continue to watch out for the familiar wail of the siren and count the familiar 15 seconds:

Palestinian gunmen fired six rockets and three mortar shells into Israel on Sunday morning. One of the rockets hit the Sderot area, another rocket hit a henhouse in a kibbutz and a third one landed near another kibbutz.

The Israeli government declared a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza without making significant progress in the efforts to release Gilad Shalit. The campaign representing the kidnapped soldier's family said Saturday night that "there is a lot of concern in light of the prime minister's statement that he is still committed to do everything to bring Gilad back home."

Does it all look bleak? Because it is. I've promised (see under "Predictions").

I don't have a choice now but to quote myself, if only for the reason that I haven't seen somebody else saying this. It was regarding the hysterical shrieking by Naomi Klein ("Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction") that I have asked a fairly simple question: "Don't you feel some words missing in that headline and clamoring to be added - to continue the list of punishments?".

Now this line (of timidity? of fear to get out of the closet? of breaking a taboo? - I wonder) has eventually been crossed - by quite a few of British "intellectuals" in this letter. It starts with:

The massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war that Israel has been waging against the people of Palestine for more than 60 years.

I hope I don't have to explain the significance of the number 60 in this quote.

I don't need to go on about this letter. It's about the need for Israel to lose the war, well - it's in fact about the desirability of a genocide, as David Hirsh explains.

It is not a good time to write more about the impact of this letter. It is a good time only to state that the fog is dissipating and the lines (drawn centuries ago) are coming out in all their blessed vividness.

16 January 2009

Sir Gerald (or in other words, Hon Gerald Kaufman, MP)has already appeared on our radar. What can I say - it has been great fun and real pleasure to view his extraordinary exploits. It is not that easy to find a nincompoop of that order of magnitude and in such an exalted position.

But his latest dazzling fit of intellectual activity (gladly picked up by CNN) easily towers over his previous mental shenanigans.

"The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt from Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians," he said.

Oh well, this strawman is not a new one, as you can easily ascertain, reading many an anti-Israeli diatribe by miscellaneous thinkers. It would be pointless to ask Sir Gerald to prove this statement, since it's not about proof or veracity. I don't know - the "present Israeli government" exploited several things - like relatively low gas prices (essential to fuel all that military machinery), the Christmas vacation, the wall-to-wall support of the citizenry demanding an end to the budding rocket science in Gaza, etc. But Holocaust? Oh well. I have already told several times that I personally use that "Holocaust guilt" of the gentiles only abroad and only to jump an especially long queue. Of course, Sir Gerald wouldn't listen.

But then Sir Gerald has decided to round up his accusation by another twist:

My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town.... AGerman soldier shot her dead in her bed, he said. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.

So who us using Holocaust now, Sir Gerald? This logical ellipse easily wins the 2009 prise for nincompoopery, and we aren't even in February yet! But there is nothing to do: all present and future contenders are left way behind, eating the dust.

So here it is: the 2009 Sir Gerald Nincompoop Of The Year award - won by Sir Gerald himself:

Saying this and after a hearty sigh of relief, here is something funny and related to the Hudson miracle.

In the wake of the events of 1-15, in which a wedge of Geese brought down a US Airways aircraft, here’s what you won’t be hearing about from the so-called “Mainstream Media”: We brought this on ourselves. After an event such as this one, it’s important to look at the root causes: Why did the Geese attack us? Well, the truth is, for years we have been oppressing the Geese, using them for the fuel they provide for our bodies.

15 January 2009

I have reported earlier on two seemingly unrelated activities by Hamas: one that appeared to be a technical glitch that caused a 6 minute Polish porn clip to be aired on Hamas TV, and the other - a threatening SMS that promises IDF soldiers fate worth than death.

Being a simple Hasbarah grunt with limited brainpower and analytical abilities, I want to express my gratitude to Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin, thanks to whose penetrating wisdom these two events are now linked.

Yes, being forced to watch Polish porn is an unusually cruel torture that should be immediately listed in one of those interminable Geneva papers. Surely worse than death.

This is such a classic and it reminds me so much of the illiterate thugs that raided the universities in Iran during the 'cultural revolution'.In this clip, the mob leader with the tannoy shouting the slogans, warms up the flock with the usual 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' to begin with but then his zeal takes over his brain cells and he shouts 'Death to Palestine'. Few of the mob twig on and start laughing but the rest simply repeat the leader and shout accordingly 'Death to Palestine'.

Absolute classic :))

True, thanks to Azarmehr again. Which reminds me a story I heard many years ago. During one of the interminable May 1st parades on the Red Square (that's in Moscow, then USSR), where every Muscovite was marching with his/her organization, proudly, if unwillingly carrying a placard with this or other prescribed slogan, one citizen decided to show some originality. His placard was saying: "We'll give a crushing answer to the enemies of the world capitalism".

It took about an hour and one less inebriated policeman to grok that the placard is a bit different.